Having those 40 million pay for healthcare instead of having you pay for theirs seems like a solution a Libertarian would want...

Why the hell would a libertarian want something that forces someone to get otherwise face a fine? It violates NAP (non aggression principle).

Also just because 40 million people are now getting health insurance doesn't mean it's a positive, a lot of peoples premiums are going to go up, and a lot of people are going to have to switch plans OR a lot of peoples plans have disappeared because of ACA, so while yeah 40 million people are better off, how many are worse off? I'd say more.

can you cite this 40 extra dollar a month? I'm sure it varies between different people, I've heard some people it will squeeze their paycheck a lot.

Also there is a lot more than just 40 extra bucks a month, free market economist and libertarians believe that a free market health care system would help more people than ACA because it would provide much cheaper services and operations. However there are valid arguments saying such a system would be dangerous since there would be questionable methods/medicines and poor people wouldn't be able to seek treatment and would rely on charities.

If investors and businesses are moving out of Cali, even residents with capital, it means capital is leaving, so Cali would be less wealthy, which considering the amount of government spending Cali does, it needs more wealthy residents not less.

rad·i·cal adjective \ˈra-di-kəl\ - very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary.

libertarianism seems pretty traditional when comparing to our founding fathers, while I'm not calling them libertarian, the message of liberty was definitely heard during that time. However i suppose libertarianism is out of the ordinary in the last 100 years, but i don't believe that justifies it to fit the radical label.

Wouldn't the cause of that be that a lot of people retire in red states like Florida and Arizona, and isn't a lot of government programs in red states as well like NASA bases and military bases are mostly in the south right? And don't most natural disasters happen in the south in red states? I could be wrong but common sense tells me I'm not.

This is why i find it so funny how left-wing also try to group libertarians with right wingers and vice versa.

Left wingers call libertarians closet republicans because we believe in free-markets and capitalism also deregulating or in another words taking away power from corporations. Yet right wingers will call us left wingers because we are against war and for gay marriage and all the other social issues.

Yet, left wingers and right wingers have more in common with themselves than libertarians have in common with either, both your parties are authoritarians the complete opposite of a libertarian.

But i do get a giggle out of the political speak the left wingers and right wingers play with words that mean whatever they want it to mean.

Im tired of the GOP being the only ones to throw insults and stand up for their beliefs.

You are essentially saying that GOP's beliefs are stupid, so I'm going to assume you believe that your beliefs are the opposite of stupid right? That tells me you are the average American voter, you are a victim of political fandom, my team vs their team.

Meanwhile, Libertarians continue to ignore/not care about all the states passing draconian anti-abortion laws. Wonder why that is......hmmmm.

Probably because that is the most disagreed upon issue libertarians talk about, there is no set in stone view on abortion that libertarians believe in. Also most libertarians don't view abortion as a "big issue" compared to constitutional issues like the 2nd amendment. Which makes pretty good sense.

How do you figure they are underpaid? That is what the job market is offering for their job for what they produce.

Also do McDonalds make billions in profits in America alone? because they do have franchises and things across the world in 100s of countries, also you must keep in mind that the McDonalds corporation makes money off royalties and fees from franchise McDonald stores, so just because they make millions and billions in profits doesn't mean the franchise McDonald store is.

Also if you raised the wage of workers so that they are paid more than what they are producing or close to it, it would drive down profits which would lose investors and cause the stock to drop and in essence kill off one of America's largest employers, and once again everyone would suffer.

Just because someone works harder doesn't mean their labor is worth more, I work a warehouse job 12 hour days and don't even make 9$ an hour, but that is what my labor is worth according to the market. Someone sitting in a comfy air conditioned office can make x4 my wage on a salary where they don't even have to work as much or pull long shifts like me, because their labor is worth more.

Just because you work hard or harder than some people doesn't mean you deserve more or the same as those who work less, it's all about what you produce, if you try to skew that equation by paying people more than what they produce, you essentially wreck the economy and everyone suffers.

I'm not going to argue about Affirmative Action since it means many many many different things.

It gives special treatment to certain groups of people.

Planned Parenthood is not a charity (it's not even a welfare program), is private, is not an entirely free service, posts a small profit, and gets over 50% of their funding from non-Government oganizations/grants.

Planned Parenthood is in fact a charity i don't know what the hell would make you think it's not a charity, it has also received federal funding since the 70s. Planned Parenthood has received over 500 million dollars in 2012 alone, over a third of Planned Parenthood's spending is funded by the government. Oh and Planned Parenthood has small profits because it is a non-profit charity.

It is in fact without question a government funded charity, do you support the government funding Planned Parenthood?

Well clearly you are very biased, but I'm afraid to inform you that "your side" isn't magically correct, even though the left and keynesian thinkers always say they use empiric models and things of this sort, economics is a pseudoscience.

Doesn't matter what side says what, they are never going to be true, it will only be predictions because the scientific method does not apply to economics, so until someone can predict the needs, wants and desires of every single human being, economics will be a pseudoscience.

I'm pretty sure this whole "ashamed republican" thing is something most democrat/progressive/liberal posters say because /r/libertarian has way more topics on things government/liberal/progressive are doing wrong than republicans. In hopes of discrediting us i suppose.

There are all sorts of posters on /r/libertarian, and the people who generalize what /r/libertarian is, i find very naive. Most people view /r/libertarian because we share the same ideals, some people view /libertarian because they disagree with libertarian views and they want their view to be debated which is great.

He also speaks at many economic gatherings, even got to speak at the mises institute. So there are many economist out there who respect Ron Pauls opinion, he has spent a lot of time studying economics and i believe he understands economics just as good as any economist.

lib·er·tar·i·an: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

Racism: Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior.

So libertarians are racists now, even tho the definition of libertarian is the exact opposite of racism?

Are you actually this stupid? I know a lot of people call you a troll and things, but i actually believe you're this stupid.

I was told by many people on reddit that i should vote for Obama again because if he got reelected he would have nothing to lose, and all those 'political suicide' things he wants to do, he could finally accomplish. Turns out i was right about those redditors being overly optimistic, and voted 3rd party instead.